Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Brittany Cartrett recently learned some bad news from her doctor about her pregnancy. She miscarried around five or six weeks along.

"So we made the decision to not do a D&C and to get a medicine. So he said I'm going to give you this medicine, you'll take it, and it will help you to pass naturally so that you don't have to go the more invasive route", said Brittany Cartrett.

The doctor's office called the Milledgeville Walmart to fill the prescription but they were told no and they were not given a reason.

"So we found another place to fill it but I still had to go up there to get another prescription so when I went up there she asked if I had any questions about this prescription I said no I don't but I do have a question about the other one. And she looks at my name and she says oh, well...I couldn't think of a valid reason why you would need this prescription", Cartrett said.

The drug in question is Misoprostol, which can also used to induce abortions.

WGXA's Chace Abrose spoke off camera to Wal-Mart pharmacist Sandip Patel who said he was aware of the situation and also said that pharmacists have the ability to turn down prescriptions at their own discretion.

Mercer University Law Professor Zac Buck verified that the ability to turn down prescriptions based on personal beliefs has been a law in Georgia for about 15 years.

WGXA also contacted Brian Nick at Walmart's corporate office who stated, "Our pharmacists fill prescriptions on a case by case basis every day in our stores throughout the country and we encourage them to exercise their professional judgment in doing so".

Cartrett said, "It's very frustrating because who is the pharmacist to make that decision. I understand that they go to school for a very long time for that job. They do a residency just like a doctor does, but I'm not going to see that pharmacist, I'm going to see a doctor and if its because of that due to the conscience clause I think its called, then what other decisions are they making based on our health and our needs by not giving a prescription to someone who may or may not need it".

Cartrett told WGXA since posting her story on social media she's had several people message her who were in similar situations, one of whom had to go to five different pharmacies before she could get her medication.

Mercer professor Zac Buck saID some states like Wisconsin have an addendum to the law that georgia does not have which encourages pharmacies to have pharmacists on call that will fill prescriptions when others at the same facility refuse.

GannonFan wrote:I kinda agree with Baldy on this one - how often does this happen? And with the proliferation of pharmacies in the past 20 years (I can literally go to 10 different pharmacies in no more than a 20 minute radius) it should be pretty easy to find one who will distribute the drug you need. If this is a bigger issue and people are really being denied any and all access to drugs then I reserve the right to change my opinion. But I find it hard to believe in today's America that people are having trouble getting prescriptions filled.

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I kinda agree with Baldy on this one - how often does this happen? And with the proliferation of pharmacies in the past 20 years (I can literally go to 10 different pharmacies in no more than a 20 minute radius) it should be pretty easy to find one who will distribute the drug you need. If this is a bigger issue and people are really being denied any and all access to drugs then I reserve the right to change my opinion. But I find it hard to believe in today's America that people are having trouble getting prescriptions filled.

Why should they have to go elsewhere? This is the same BS argument used to deny gays rights. If you are open to the public, you are open to the public.

Don't want to fill a prescription? Get a new job.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Why should they have to go elsewhere? This is the same BS argument used to deny gays rights. If you are open to the public, you are open to the public.

Don't want to fill a prescription? Get a new job.

I don't see it as broadly as you do. I don't see any reason or allowance to deny any gay the same rights and privileges as a non-gay. There should be absolute civil rights in that regard. I agree, if you open a business to the public it's the expectation that you serve any willing customers. But I don't see the connection between that and selling an abortifacient when it's contrary to your belief. I think the problem arises when misinformed pharmacists or just flat out ignorant ones start to classify drugs as things they are not and try to expand the very narrow rulings that have come from the courts.

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I don't see it as broadly as you do. I don't see any reason or allowance to deny any gay the same rights and privileges as a non-gay. There should be absolute civil rights in that regard. I agree, if you open a business to the public it's the expectation that you serve any willing customers. But I don't see the connection between that and selling an abortifacient when it's contrary to your belief. I think the problem arises when misinformed pharmacists or just flat out ignorant ones start to classify drugs as things they are not and try to expand the very narrow rulings that have come from the courts.

Abortion is legal. Work to make it illegal if you object. Any in this case, the pill had nothing to do with abortion. As a pharmacist, your job is to fill the prescription, making sure it doesn't counter act with other drugs the patient is getting, give advice on when/how to take it. not make moral judgements.

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I don't see it as broadly as you do. I don't see any reason or allowance to deny any gay the same rights and privileges as a non-gay. There should be absolute civil rights in that regard. I agree, if you open a business to the public it's the expectation that you serve any willing customers. But I don't see the connection between that and selling an abortifacient when it's contrary to your belief. I think the problem arises when misinformed pharmacists or just flat out ignorant ones start to classify drugs as things they are not and try to expand the very narrow rulings that have come from the courts.

Abortion is legal. Work to make it illegal if you object. Any in this case, the pill had nothing to do with abortion. As a pharmacist, your job is to fill the prescription, making sure it doesn't counter act with other drugs the patient is getting, give advice on when/how to take it. not make moral judgements.

Skjellyfetti wrote:For people that argue a tightening of abortion laws would have no effect on miscarriages.

Woman turned away by pharmacist for drugs she needed after miscarriage because of "personal conscience" clause.

Brittany Cartrett recently learned some bad news from her doctor about her pregnancy. She miscarried around five or six weeks along.

"So we made the decision to not do a D&C and to get a medicine. So he said I'm going to give you this medicine, you'll take it, and it will help you to pass naturally so that you don't have to go the more invasive route", said Brittany Cartrett.

The doctor's office called the Milledgeville Walmart to fill the prescription but they were told no and they were not given a reason.

"So we found another place to fill it but I still had to go up there to get another prescription so when I went up there she asked if I had any questions about this prescription I said no I don't but I do have a question about the other one. And she looks at my name and she says oh, well...I couldn't think of a valid reason why you would need this prescription", Cartrett said.

The drug in question is Misoprostol, which can also used to induce abortions.

WGXA's Chace Abrose spoke off camera to Wal-Mart pharmacist Sandip Patel who said he was aware of the situation and also said that pharmacists have the ability to turn down prescriptions at their own discretion.

Mercer University Law Professor Zac Buck verified that the ability to turn down prescriptions based on personal beliefs has been a law in Georgia for about 15 years.

WGXA also contacted Brian Nick at Walmart's corporate office who stated, "Our pharmacists fill prescriptions on a case by case basis every day in our stores throughout the country and we encourage them to exercise their professional judgment in doing so".

Cartrett said, "It's very frustrating because who is the pharmacist to make that decision. I understand that they go to school for a very long time for that job. They do a residency just like a doctor does, but I'm not going to see that pharmacist, I'm going to see a doctor and if its because of that due to the conscience clause I think its called, then what other decisions are they making based on our health and our needs by not giving a prescription to someone who may or may not need it".

Cartrett told WGXA since posting her story on social media she's had several people message her who were in similar situations, one of whom had to go to five different pharmacies before she could get her medication.

Mercer professor Zac Buck saID some states like Wisconsin have an addendum to the law that georgia does not have which encourages pharmacies to have pharmacists on call that will fill prescriptions when others at the same facility refuse.

http://www.wgxa.tv/news/local/Milledgev ... 21801.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GannonFan wrote:I kinda agree with Baldy on this one - how often does this happen?

CID1990 wrote: I can't buy boar sausage at a Jewish deli, either but you don't see me whini.g about it

89Hen wrote: Pro-choice folks would have you believe that a majority of abortions are because of incest or rape, so...

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote: I can't buy boar sausage at a Jewish deli, either but you don't see me whini.g about it

Holy fuck this may be the dumbest analogy I've seen on here.

Do you really think that's comparable in any way?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote: I can't buy boar sausage at a Jewish deli, either but you don't see me whini.g about it

Holy **** this may be the dumbest analogy I've seen on here.

Do you really think that's comparable in any way?

GannonFan wrote:I kinda agree with Baldy on this one - how often does this happen? And with the proliferation of pharmacies in the past 20 years (I can literally go to 10 different pharmacies in no more than a 20 minute radius) it should be pretty easy to find one who will distribute the drug you need. If this is a bigger issue and people are really being denied any and all access to drugs then I reserve the right to change my opinion. But I find it hard to believe in today's America that people are having trouble getting prescriptions filled.

JohnStOnge wrote:To me it's between the Wal Mart and the Pharmacist. If the Wal Mart wants to allow its Pharmacists to make such decisions then so be it. It goes back to this thing where people think they are entitled to have other people engage in commerce with them. It's a bad concept.

Government should not have any role in the situation. A "religious freedom" law shouldn't even be necessary because government shouldn't be trying to force people to engage in commerce they don't want to engage in to begin with. Doesn't matter what the reason for not wanting to engage in commerce is. Selling or not selling something should be a matter of personal choice just as buying or not buying something is.

Now, of course, if you work for someone else and they want you to sell something and you refuse to sell it they have the right to fire you. But that's a different thing. The important point is that it should be considered none of government's business.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I kinda agree with Baldy on this one - how often does this happen? And with the proliferation of pharmacies in the past 20 years (I can literally go to 10 different pharmacies in no more than a 20 minute radius) it should be pretty easy to find one who will distribute the drug you need. If this is a bigger issue and people are really being denied any and all access to drugs then I reserve the right to change my opinion. But I find it hard to believe in today's America that people are having trouble getting prescriptions filled.

Because nowhere in America is Walmart the only game in town.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Because nowhere in America is Walmart the only game in town.

Exactly.

The little po dunk town I grew up in doesn't even have a chain grocery store, much less a Walmart, but it has a CVS a Rite Aid and at least 3 independent pharmacies.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Exactly.

The little po dunk town I grew up in doesn't even have a chain grocery store, much less a Walmart, but it has a CVS a Rite Aid and at least 3 independent pharmacies.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Exactly.

The little po dunk town I grew up in doesn't even have a chain grocery store, much less a Walmart, but it has a CVS a Rite Aid and at least 3 independent pharmacies.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:

It kinda sucks when the anecdotal evidence is reality, doesn't it?

Well, be my guest.

Please show us a sample of towns across this great plain where Wally World is the ONLY game in town. I'm sure all of your progressive talking point propaganda has got to contain a long list of examples.

In North Dakota, unlike any other state, independent pharmacies like Central Pharmacy are the norm—thanks to a 1963 law stipulating that only a licensed pharmacist or group of pharmacists can own and operate a pharmacy.

But on November 4, North Dakotans will vote on a referendum that, if passed, would overturn that law—opening the door for in-house pharmacies at chains like Walgreens and Walmart.

Those who oppose the referendum fear the loss of unique protections for local, independent pharmacies, which are becoming scarcer throughout the country and are more likely to serve rural populations. Some opponents believe that instead of being stamped out, North Dakota’s law should continue, serving as a model for protecting local economies by supporting independent businesses.

On the other side, North Dakotans for Lower Pharmacy Prices, an entity funded almost entirely by Walmart to the tune of more than $7 million , hired a Michigan petition firm to gather the signatures required to put a referendum on the ballot. The campaign argues that overturning the existing law will open up competition for prescription drug sales in the state, thereby lowering drug costs for all North Dakotans.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: It kinda sucks when the anecdotal evidence is reality, doesn't it?

Well, be my guest.

Please show us a sample of towns across this great plain where Wally World is the ONLY game in town. I'm sure all of your progressive talking point propaganda has got to contain a long list of examples.

I got nuttin'.